Yes, I can imagine. I'd be surprised if anyone told me that the people around the table had nothing planned for the weekend and that everyone was waiting for the government's amendment so they could work on it all weekend.
That said, we had prepared a number of amendments. I understand that my NDP colleague is going to work with the government on amendment G-2, so maybe I'm wasting my breath. Again, it's somewhat disappointing to think that we did all this work for nothing. I wish I'd known that in advance. Anyway, I don't know if we can incorporate the changes proposed in amendments BQ-1 and BQ-6, which go together, into amendment G-2.
In the current text of the bill, proposed subclause 264.01(1) begins: “Everyone commits an offence who…engages in”, after which amendment BQ-1 proposes to add “without reasonable cause”, to the acts that are listed in the rest of the wording. I'm talking here about the version without the changes proposed in amendment G-2. Can we incorporate this proposal into amendment G-2? It would be in the same place. I think that would be appropriate.
Amendment BQ-6 proposes to delete a passage from the current version of the bill. The provision begins at line 25 on page 2 and provides an exception in cases where “the accused was acting in the best interests of the person”. However, we've heard from witnesses that this can be a bit of an issue. What is considered to be a person's best interests can vary from one individual to another. This wording strikes me as problematic in terms of how the courts might interpret it, or at the very least, how the accused might interpret it. In fact, any defendant could say that he acted in what he considered to be the victim's best interests. In such a case, one could question the mens rea and end up acquitting the person on the basis that he believed he was acting in the victim's “best interests”.
That is why we believe this provision should be removed and instead the words “without reasonable cause” should be added to proposed subclause 264.01(1). In this way, the wording would indicate that anyone who engages without reasonable cause in all of the specified behaviours is committing an offence. In this case, if an accused says he had reasonable cause, the courts can assess this fact more generally and objectively. Let's take a situation where the accused individual acknowledges having acted in a controlling and coercive manner, for example by preventing their spouse from going to such and such a place or doing something, but says that they did so because it was really reasonable to do so in the circumstances. That's different from saying they thought it was reasonable. The court, objectively, will judge whether or not there was an element of reasonableness in the actions taken.
It seems to me that this wording would be more respectful of all the situations we're trying to cover. This is new law. Everyone has probably behaved in a controlling and coercive way in their lives, particularly towards their children, and reasonably thought it was necessary to do so. In this case, I think the behaviours in question were often unreasonable. We're tackling the problem. For my part, I fully agree with Bill C‑332. I agree with all the arguments that our colleague Ms. Collins presented to us in committee and that our colleague Mr. Garrison also expressed many times in a previous Parliament. Parliament does indeed have to tackle this problem, but I still think we need to proceed cautiously. I think it would be more prudent to state that the actions must have been taken without reasonable cause. That way, if, for whatever reason, the court finds that, in a given situation, the accused acted reasonably, he could be acquitted and not sent to prison for 10 years.
This is the nature of amendment BQ-1. I understand that it is not yet under consideration, since it comes after amendment G-2, which we are discussing at the moment. I mention it, however, from the perspective that we're about to throw everything else in the trash.
First, I'd like to know if the witnesses agree with my interpretation or if I've been mistaken in some way. If the witnesses tell us that it would be wise to do what I propose, is it possible to present a subamendment? I don't know how it could be done. I'll leave the practical matters to you to decide, Mr. Clerk and Madam Chair.
I'd like Ms. Levman and Ms. Wiltsie‑Brown to comment on the element of reasonableness, that is, inserting “without reasonable cause” in proposed subclause 264.01(1). The new subclause would thus read, “Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable cause, repeatedly” engages in the acts that are mentioned.
That was a long question, and I apologize, but I think the explanations were necessary.
